Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
tautologies and do not provide any concrete The other part of the knowledge still remains
guideline to practicing managers. We aim at exclusively in the domain of the individual.
clarifying some of these ambiguities and This knowledge cannot be fully
provide a framework between individual communicated, but only perceived by the
knowledge and organizational knowledge. individual (Polanyi, 1967; Nelson and
The use of this framework enables managers Winter, 1982; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and
to understand how different kinds of Takeuchi, 1995).
knowledge are conceptualized and managed. To manage knowledge efficiently, a firm
needs a highly flexible and adaptable
organizational structure. For example,
Defining knowledge Prahalad and Hamel (1990) suggest that in
present environments, organizations should
Because of its intangible and fuzzy nature, structure on the basis of core competencies,
defining knowledge precisely is difficult. What because these kinds of structures are
is knowledge for one person can be inherently dynamic and flexible and they can
information for the other. Therefore, sustain high level of environmental
valuation of knowledge is risky, because uncertainty and chaos (see also Nonaka,
productivity gain from untried knowledge 1994).
cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, knowledge Knowledge management is thus a process
can be a liability if it does not provide the of facilitating knowledge-related activities,
expected results. For example, presently, the such as creation, capture, transformation, and
majority of management techniques used by use of knowledge (Bhatt, 2000). The
several firms are in stark contrast to the management process includes a range of
traditional management principles that once activities ranging from learning,
were perceived to increase the collaboration, and experimentation to
competitiveness of the firms. In the present integration of diverse sets of tasks and
environment, the use of these traditional implementation of powerful information
methods has become a liability, as these systems, such as Internets, intranets, and
methods have not been found to offer extranets.
competitive advantages to the firms (see
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Prahalad and
Hamel, 1990). Individual knowledge vs organizational
Despite the difficulties in defining knowledge
knowledge, it is well agreed that knowledge is
an organized combination of ideas, rules, A number of researchers such as Weick
procedures, and information (Marakas, 1999, (1978) and Simon (1976) believed that
p. 264). That is, only through the organizations did not have learning
organization, does information find its life capabilities. It is rather individuals in
and become knowledge. Quinn et al. (1996) organizations that learn. However, a number
equate knowledge with professional intellect. of researchers like Starbuck (1983) and
According to this view, organizational Nelson and Winter (1982) propose that
knowledge, at best, is a metaphor, as it is not organizations evolve through their learning
the organization but people in the capabilities. Organizations learn and acquire
organization who create knowledge. Nonaka knowledge through their routines and
(1994) defines knowledge as justified belief, repertoires, which are embedded in specific
where beliefs are used to justify self-interests. organizational histories (Nelson and Winter,
This concept of knowledge is congruent with 1982). The way in which knowledge of
the constructionist perspective. In this diverse repertoires or routines is integrated
perspective, actors are considered to enact and new knowledge is created is shaped by
and construct realities based on their mental organizational history and culture (Barney,
models, which are shaped through 1986). In this perspective, an organization is
interpretations and discourse between referred as a problem-facing and
different members (Dervin, 1994). A part of problem-solving entity. The learning that
knowledge, thus, becomes public goods that takes place in an organization is significantly
are continually reexamined and reinterpreted affected by the complexity of tasks and the
by different social members (Raelin, 1997). organizational environment.
32
Strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge Journal of Knowledge Management
Ganesh D. Bhatt Volume 6 . Number 1 . 2002 . 3139
36
Strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge Journal of Knowledge Management
Ganesh D. Bhatt Volume 6 . Number 1 . 2002 . 3139
run their own agenda and do not pay being taken into account in seeking the
attention to organizational mission, goals, solutions of the organizational problems,
and strategies. At the same time, experts the organization is likely to suffer from
cannot be commanded that they should implementation problems. Hewlett-
use their expertise for the organization. Packard (HP) and 3-M are well known
Therefore, management needs to for creating collaborative environments in
determine the ways through which it can their organizations to facilitate easy
balance the needs of the organization, i.e. networking and knowledge sharing
exploitation of experts knowledge, and among employees.
the desires of experts, i.e. exploration of (4) Cell 4. In cell 4, the main challenge for an
new knowledge. Microsoft, a premier organization is to store and codify rules
software company, has been found to and procedures in simple format so that
efficiently manage this kind of dilemma in employees can easily access and
knowledge management. It not only understand them. If rules and procedures
encourages its experts for risk-taking, but are not stored and written clearly, each
also sets concrete guidelines on resources, employee is likely to follow his/her own
schedules, and usability of the projects interpretation of the rules. However,
that experts intend to initiate. when rules and procedures are clearly
(3) Cell 3. In cell 3, the use of self-organized marked down, there is far less ambiguity
teams and social interactions are in understanding and interpreting those
considered conducive to enhancing the rules and procedures. Automation and
richness of the organizational knowledge standardization of tasks and schedules are
base. The emphasis on multiple common means of handling this kind of
interpretations not only brings new situation.
realities, but also renews organizational The rules and regulations for carrying
commitment to replenish the contents of routine tasks do not remain the same
the organizational knowledge base throughout the life of an organization.
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The When external environments begin to
process of multiple interpretations on change drastically, it is important that
knowledge is important as it allows management carefully reviews the
individuals to revise, reshape, or modify significance of existing rules, procedures,
their belief systems in relation to others and policies. If existing rules, procedures,
(Bhatt, 2000). and policies do not fit to the current state
In order to enhance interactions of business realities, management should
between employees, an organization can seek and devise new sets of rules,
use a wide variety of divergent procedures, and policies. In other words,
perspectives, including brainstorming, reviews and revisions of rules,
dialectical thinking, and continuous procedures, and policies become one of
experimentations (Bhatt, 1998). By the main goals of the firm to keep abreast
bringing forth multiple perspectives on with changing realities and new
knowledge, an organization becomes knowledge. A number of quality
much more sensitive to environmental improvement initiatives undertaken by
stimuli to understand the realities of the several firms come under this category.
marketplace. Moreover, multiple
perspectives enable organizations to
assess the applicability and the risk of Implications
using a particular kind of knowledge in
various situations. In the present dynamic and fast environment,
Managements role in creating a the need for organizational knowledge is
nature of collaboration is important clear. In several situations, however, the
because complex organizational tasks application of individual knowledge and
require deeper analysis of the problems. expertise becomes critical. This depends on
Moreover, implementation of the nature of tasks and the nature of
organization-wide solutions requires interactions between individuals. If a task
commitment from employees. If requires specific expertise, a specialist can use
employees views and perspectives are not his or her own knowledge to solve the
37
Strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge Journal of Knowledge Management
Ganesh D. Bhatt Volume 6 . Number 1 . 2002 . 3139
problem. On the other hand, if a task requires such as checking customer credits, billing,
the application of knowledge from different and other inquiries, can be easily assigned at
areas, individual expertise in itself may not be the individual levels. However, when an
a solution of the problem. In this case, how organization faces nonspecific tasks, the
organizational members interact and collective learning and quick interactions
collaborate to share their knowledge becomes between pools of employees are likely to be
much more important. useful to solve the problems quickly.
Also the extent to which a task is considered We understand that individual knowledge is
specific or non-specific depends on the a product of social interactions, created in a
existing organizational environment and socially constructed culture. However, this
managements willingness to empower its discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.
people. For example, in a university setting, Our main goal is to emphasize that individual
until a few years ago teaching assistants were knowledge is as important as organizational
guided by the university professors on how knowledge and the relative importance of
they should teach, what kinds of course both depends on the nature of tasks, the level
contents they should cover, and how they of individual training, and motivation, and
should grade the students. But with managements willingness to abdicate some of
increasing pressure in research and its traditional responsibilities to the lower
publications, a majority of professors are no level employees.
longer interested in providing any serious
guidance to their teaching assistants. Rather,
professors have given their teaching Conclusions
responsibilities to the teaching assistants.
Therefore, for teaching assistants teaching a In the present turbulent environment,
class on his or her own has become a norm. organizations have seen a shift from
Now, teaching assistants decide what contemporary approaches of strategy to the
contents to cover and how to grade their internal resources of the firms in explaining
students. the advantages in firms performance
However, often, individual expertise is not (Barney, 1986; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990;
sufficient. For example, designing and writing Teece et al., 1997). Central to the theme of
complex software programs require the use of the resource-based view is the role of
many experts who work with different organizations in developing and deploying
modules and applications. In this case, scarce resource capabilities, which cannot be
organizational culture and interaction easily imitated.
patterns among experts become crucial. Or In this perspective, knowledge is considered
take the case of developing a new product for a key resource, but many organizations still do
a company. In this case, organizational not know how to manage knowledge. A few
knowledge is far more important than the organizations, such as Federal Express,
individual expertise possessed by marketing, Hewlett-Packard, and 3-M have learnt to
manufacturing, or R&D people. For the leverage knowledge for their competitiveness,
successful launch of a product, assimilation of but a majority of organizations are still facing
cross-functional expertise and collective innumerable challenges in capitalizing on
learning become important (Prahalad and knowledge.
Hamel, 1990). This paper argues that a part of knowledge
A number of researchers argue in favor of is public and the other part of knowledge is
empowerment. They contend that if private. Although an organization can
individuals are empowered, they begin to take monitor and control public knowledge, it
extra responsibilities to solve organizational finds it difficult to control private knowledge.
problems by learning new skills at the jobs. One way through which management can
This could be correct for specific tasks, as manage private knowledge is by creating an
they may be solved with minor adjustments. environment of collaboration and informal
But we caution that empowerment does not coordination. In so doing, an organization not
necessarily leads to better results. only deepens its employees knowledge but
Individual training and nature of tasks are also creates new organizational knowledge.
main factors that impact on the results of the Through participation and cooperation, an
empowerment. For example, routine tasks, organization establishes a shared-schema to
38
Strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge Journal of Knowledge Management
Ganesh D. Bhatt Volume 6 . Number 1 . 2002 . 3139
replace old knowledge with the new one that Davenport, T.H., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Beers, M.C. (1996),
becomes necessary for continuous ``Improving knowledge work processes, Sloan
Management Review, Summer, pp. 53-65.
improvement and breakthrough innovation
Dervin, B. (1994), ``Information, democracy: an
(Weick, 1995). examination of underlying assumptions, Journal of
This paper proposes that individual the American Society for Information Science,
knowledge and organizational knowledge are Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 369-85.
distinct yet interdependent. Individual Garvin, D.A. (1993), ``Building a learning organization,
knowledge is often expressed through Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 78-91.
Marakas, G.M. (1999), Decision Support Systems in the
personal creativity and self-expression. Twenty-first Century, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Organizational knowledge is reflected in Cliffs, New Jersey, NJ.
products and services that an organization Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary
creates and sells to its customers. Individual Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of
expertise in an organization is an asset, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ``A dynamic theory of organizational
however, if management does not nurture
knowledge creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5
individual expertise carefully, individual No. 1, pp. 14-37.
self-expressions become organizational Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge
liabilities. Therefore, management should Creating Company How Japanese Companies
create an environment that encourages its Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
employees to collaborate to share knowledge.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday,
This results in enhancing employees New York, NY.
knowledge and creating organizational Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), ``The core
knowledge through individual interactions. competence of the corporation, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-93.
Quinn, J.P., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996),
``Managing professional intellect: making the most
References of the best, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 71-80.
Barney, J.B. (1986), ``Strategic factor markets: Raelin, J.A. (1997), ``A model of work-based learning,
expectations, luck, and business strategy, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 563-78.
Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 1231-41. Simon, H.A. (1976), Administrative Behavior: A Study of
Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of Post-industrial Society, Decision-making Processes in Administrative
Basic Books, New York, NY. Organization, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Bhatt, G. (1998), ``Managing knowledge through people, Stalk, G. (1988), ``Time the next source of competitive
Knowledge and Process Management: Journal of advantage, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66
Business Transformation, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 165-71. No. 4, pp. 41-55.
Bhatt, G. (2000), ``Organizing knowledge in the Starbuck, W.H. (1983), ``Organizations as action
knowledge development cycle, Journal of generators, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-26. pp. 91-102.
Bhatt, G. (2001), ``Knowledge management in Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), ``Dynamic
organizations: examining the interaction between capabilities and strategic management, Strategic
technologies, techniques, and people, Journal of Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-75. Weick, K.E. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizing,
Cappelli, P. (2000), ``A market-drive n approach to Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA.
retaining talent, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage
No. 2, pp. 103-11. Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
39